On Sun, 2005-07-03 at 22:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 05:12:02PM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote: [snip] > Then take it up with them. Users of those symbols have had many months > advance notice that this was going to happen. > > > Was a decision to use EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL deliberate and if yes then > > what considerations dictated it, other then the patch author wrote > > it that way, and what drivers in question are supposed to use when > > this change will show up in the mainline? It looks that 2.6.13 > > will do this. > > Please see the archives for the answers to these questions.
The archives say: Greg KH wrote: > I have been recently advised that I should not change these symbols, > and so I will not. > > Sorry for the noise and wasted bandwidth, will not happen again. > > greg k-h Sourced from here: http://hulllug.principalhosting.net/archive/index.php/t-52440.html That was the way it was as of 2.6.10-mm1 and it stayed that way through 2.6.12. When did that decision change? If it was there in the archives, I missed it in the search. If this was a Greg-only decision, perhaps a patch reversing the change addressed to Linus would get a solid yes/no decision from the top. From what I gather in the archives, the last time this happened it was just a leak from Greg's tree and not an official policy change. It isn't in the feature removal schedule, even though other _GPL changes are listed there. -- Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part